Search reports

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the search mechanism (pgvector similarity, substring fallback) and the read-only, idempotent nature, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). No contradictions; adds technical depth beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first states purpose and approach, second provides technical detail. Front-loaded, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given output schema exists, description does not need to explain return values. Covers search behavior, fallback, and parameter defaults. Complete for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., query being natural-language or component path, default threshold 0.2). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Semantic + keyword search over reports,' specifying the exact resource (reports) and the approach (semantic with keyword fallback). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'search_codebase' or 'query_lessons'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for searching reports with a natural-language query, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_recent_reports' or 'search_codebase'. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.